Oh? From what I understand I thought the Earth is overpopulated. Would you mind explaining to me how the opposite is true and if it
is true that there is an actual threat to declining human population?

If the Earth was truly overpopulated by humans, everyone in the world would be suffering just as badly as most people in 3rd world countries do, and virtually every large animals species that can't be domesticated would be extinct, and all plants that are too large or aren't beneficial to humans would be exitinct too. We're not overpopulated, resources just aren't being distributed evenly. The U.S alone only makes up 5% of the world's population, but we use about 25% of the world's resources.

I don't think we're in threat of declining, but we definetly aren't overpopulated.

In a sense we are overpopulated.
Increased living standards in developing countries and more countries developing leads to higher demand of products like steel and crude oil to fuel the economies of the various countries.
With this sudden rise in countries like Vietnam, India and China the west can no longer keep up with its wasteful lifestyle products (like steel) once abundant are now rationed as they are sent to countries that have far more building developments i.e China.
Now I don't have any statistics to support this but I think it's safe to say that a family in the 1st world uses more resources in a year than a 3rd world family -this is still the norm as the 3rd world countries have larger popn.'s than first world countries but as that begins to change people see that we have overpopulation because of scarcity of products.

TL;DR we are overpopulated based on our current resource eg steel, Crude oil that fuels our economy
If our main resource was people (like the Romans) we wouldn't see ourselves as overpopulated because of the abundance of potential slaves.

Everyone, or at least a lot more people, could have those things if certain 1st world countries (U.S) wasn't so wasteful with them. We have plenty of resources, they just aren't being distributed evenly, mainly because living standards are rising and they are already too high in some places (IMO).

When people think of overpopulation, they think that there are too many people for the Earth to be able to sustain, and that is the common misconception that I was aiming to clear up. Like you I don't have any statistics, and I don't know anything about our economy, so you may be right about steel and crude oil. But I'm fairly certain that most people in most terrible impoverished countries could live much better lives and have more of the bare basics (clean water, appropriate clothing, and food every day) if certain other countires were willing to make some sacrifices.

I completely agree but I'm going to add an assumption of mine (note: when you assume you make an ASS out of U and ME)
When people are restricted in their use of resources so that other people may have access to the same; they begin to blame overpopulation as the main reason as to why they may no longer selfishly waste those resources.
I'll use myself as an example: Everyone likes a good shower right? What if your government began limiting the amount of time and the amount of water pressure that you may use in your shower so that others may use the (allegedly) finite resource of pure water.
Most people accustomed to their lives of waste would blame overpopulation as the main factor. (that's what I assume anyway.
Greenpeace's Nz political party the (imaginatively named) Greens tried to do this and we told them to shove it.

And I once owned a rabbit that liked to eat sausages, but it doesn't make it the norm.

Pets pretty much eats anything you feed them that tastes good. I had hamsters and turtles that did the same.

As for cannibalism..that's pretty sad if a group can't figure an alternative by the time they are desperate for cannibalism. Unless they are on an island with nothing but sand...then they are in deep sh*t (I guess they can go on with the cannibalism)

Personally, I don't see cannibalism as horrible as society makes us think it is. In actuality, in some cultures (I would name it if I remember the name of the group who practiced it) a deceased family member would be eaten, and that would be seen almost as if honoring said person. Survival cannibalism, is just that in itself - survival. Lest they find edible vegetation in the area, the idea is going to kick in that meat is meat and that equals life. Think about it, there have been many reported cases of cannibalism. Certain tribes in Africa, natives of Latin America and even the Crusaders (the latter which was pointed out by the Roman Catholic church as barbaric) who ate rotisserie babies. There is a point when it's a part of cultural normalcy or an insane psychological issue (Japanese dude who ate that one chick, for pleasure..).

Individuals of course, should not participate in cannibalism especially in places where it's deemed illegal. Also, human meat can't just be bought and so that brings me to how people would be able to get their hands on it, apart from murdering the mailman.

Remember, we might think of ourselves as being above everything just because we're human - but in the end we're still animals with the added luxury of opposable thumbs.

Ever notice, how when you have a group of several people, stranded out in the middle of nowhere, and their food runs of, that they usually resort to cannibalism, it happens more often then you think, and what that shows, is that cannibalism is part of human nature, it's part of the instinct to survive.

Survival Cannibalism

Anthropologists divide anthropophagy into two broad categories, based on its context. One is learned cannibalism, also called customary anthropophagy. The other broad classification, survival cannibalism, is perhaps the most disturbing. Survival cannibalism isn't learned, it appears to be innate(part of human nature). It's also the one most easily forgiven in the minds of Westerners. And it's happened more commonly than civilized society would feel comfortable admitting.

The Donner Party is one striking example. In 1846, a group of Westward expansionists set out for California from the Iowa territory. A group of 89 settlers broke off from the original party, taking a shortcut through the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Stranded in the mountains by a harsh winter and faced with starvation, the group splintered again. As the weather grew worse, the original and expedition sections of the Donner Party depleted their food, their animals and eventually turned to cannibalism to survive.

Forty years later, four men on a yacht named the Mignonette sailing from England to Australia were stranded in a lifeboat after the yacht sank in the Atlantic. They remained adrift for more than two months and exhausted the meat of a sea turtle they'd captured. One of the men -- a sailor named Richard Parker -- drank seawater out of desperate thirst. As his health declined, his shipmates opted to kill and eat him rather than wait for the young man to die naturally. In an excruciating twist of irony, a sailor named Richard Parker was eaten by his fellow castaways after they'd eaten a tortoise in a 1838 Edgar Allen Poe short story, "The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym" [source: The New York Times].

In 1972, a group of 16 people, including members of a Uruguayan rugby team, faced a similar situation when a plane crash stranded them in the Andes Mountains in Chile. During their 70 days in the mountains, the surviving members of the team ate the flesh of others who died in the plane crash [source: Simpson].

Survival cannibalism has happened enough that by the 19th century, it was an unspoken fact of life in the event of a shipwreck. This, the custom of the sea, included general guidelines. Drawing lots (straws) was the traditional method of deciding who would be killed and eaten and who would carry out the killing. Usually, the person with the shortest straw died and the person with the next shortest straw was the killer [source: Salon].

Survival cannibalism is a last resort. In the case of one group adrift in a lifeboat, 116 days passed without food before the party turned to eating human flesh. In most cases, anything even remotely resembling food was first eaten. Dogs, candles, leather, shoes and blankets are all consumed first before cannibalism becomes the only recourse for survival.

Under these terrible circumstances, cannibalism seems like a logical step. It appears in Looney Tunes cartoons when characters find themselves in some other life-threatening situation. Suddenly, Bugs Bunny or Elmer Fudd notices a companion looks an awful lot like a nice, perfectly cooked porterhouse steak. As terrible as the thought is, it just makes sense. But Western society's willingness to forgive its members' consumption of human flesh in the direst of circumstances is in stark contrast to how the West views learned cannibalism.

So as that says, resorting to cannibalism to survive is hardwired into everyone's head, yours, mine, everyone. It's instinct. So remember that if you ever get stranded somewhere with a bunch of people, your next meal, could very well be sitting next to you. Although it appears to be a last resort thing. But it could very well save your life one day.

because it is a last resort, and a survival thing, it wouldn't be characterized as a part of human nature. its human nature to eat when your hungry.eating is a biological function used to survive. Eating shoes, excrements, leather, wood, ect. isnt a part of human nature, its just thats all thats left ot eat.

No country or society in the world (throughtout history) has ever made canabalism legal. That tells you a thing about human nature.
Its just that extreme problems need extreme solutions. Same thing happened in the 9/11/01 terrorists attack in america. some people had a choice to die in a fire or jump out of a building.Neither is a part of human nature-they were just the only choices left to some.

Animals do the exact same thing.Its not a part of lion's nature to eat humans.If i put a natural prey beside a human being in front of a hungry lion, the lion will attack and kill the natural prey.If its just a human in front of the lion, the lion will kill and eat the human.

Sources= Phychology teacher and Animal Planet.

Edit:ok, so my phychology teacher was a lie, i do recall a group of warriors eating the people that they killed-but it was out of ritual, i still wouldnt call canabalism human nature, its still part of extreme measures or rituals

Ever notice, how when you have a group of several people, stranded out in the middle of nowhere, and their food runs of, that they usually resort to cannibalism, it happens more often then you think, and what that shows, is that cannibalism is part of human nature, it's part of the instinct to survive.

Survival Cannibalism

Anthropologists divide anthropophagy into two broad categories, based on its context. One is learned cannibalism, also called customary anthropophagy. The other broad classification, survival cannibalism, is perhaps the most disturbing. Survival cannibalism isn't learned, it appears to be innate(part of human nature). It's also the one most easily forgiven in the minds of Westerners. And it's happened more commonly than civilized society would feel comfortable admitting.

The Donner Party is one striking example. In 1846, a group of Westward expansionists set out for California from the Iowa territory. A group of 89 settlers broke off from the original party, taking a shortcut through the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Stranded in the mountains by a harsh winter and faced with starvation, the group splintered again. As the weather grew worse, the original and expedition sections of the Donner Party depleted their food, their animals and eventually turned to cannibalism to survive.

Forty years later, four men on a yacht named the Mignonette sailing from England to Australia were stranded in a lifeboat after the yacht sank in the Atlantic. They remained adrift for more than two months and exhausted the meat of a sea turtle they'd captured. One of the men -- a sailor named Richard Parker -- drank seawater out of desperate thirst. As his health declined, his shipmates opted to kill and eat him rather than wait for the young man to die naturally. In an excruciating twist of irony, a sailor named Richard Parker was eaten by his fellow castaways after they'd eaten a tortoise in a 1838 Edgar Allen Poe short story, "The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym" [source: The New York Times].

In 1972, a group of 16 people, including members of a Uruguayan rugby team, faced a similar situation when a plane crash stranded them in the Andes Mountains in Chile. During their 70 days in the mountains, the surviving members of the team ate the flesh of others who died in the plane crash [source: Simpson].

Survival cannibalism has happened enough that by the 19th century, it was an unspoken fact of life in the event of a shipwreck. This, the custom of the sea, included general guidelines. Drawing lots (straws) was the traditional method of deciding who would be killed and eaten and who would carry out the killing. Usually, the person with the shortest straw died and the person with the next shortest straw was the killer [source: Salon].

Survival cannibalism is a last resort. In the case of one group adrift in a lifeboat, 116 days passed without food before the party turned to eating human flesh. In most cases, anything even remotely resembling food was first eaten. Dogs, candles, leather, shoes and blankets are all consumed first before cannibalism becomes the only recourse for survival.

Under these terrible circumstances, cannibalism seems like a logical step. It appears in Looney Tunes cartoons when characters find themselves in some other life-threatening situation. Suddenly, Bugs Bunny or Elmer Fudd notices a companion looks an awful lot like a nice, perfectly cooked porterhouse steak. As terrible as the thought is, it just makes sense. But Western society's willingness to forgive its members' consumption of human flesh in the direst of circumstances is in stark contrast to how the West views learned cannibalism.

So as that says, resorting to cannibalism to survive is hardwired into everyone's head, yours, mine, everyone. It's instinct. So remember that if you ever get stranded somewhere with a bunch of people, your next meal, could very well be sitting next to you. Although it appears to be a last resort thing. But it could very well save your life one day.

As an Anthropology major myself, I've been exposed to alot of weird theories and studies about the innate human nature.Yet most of those concepts make sense. And this concept of "Survival Cannibalism" is no exception.

Most people who don't study science or Anthropology are so simple minded when it comes to nature. I even heard a few ignorant people claiming that cannibalism, "isn't natural" yet are complete oblivious to the blatant evidence of cannibalism in nature. The same with concepts like "homosexuality" or "Incest"

Of course one must always be aware of the adage that says "Just because something is naturallu inherent doesn't mean that is can be justified."

It's interesting that nature can be so unusual at times, huh?

Well it does make logical sense, correct, humans being social animals, are usually gathered together, and since humans are carnivores, and again are usually gathered in groups, it makes perfect sense, that if the normal food supply runs out, you can consume your fellow humans, as they too as made of meat. So it makes logical sense that cannibalism would be a survival instinct. I mean a starving wolf would attack a fellow wolf given the right conditions. If you have to you have to right ? As for incest, i fail to see the problem with incest, and homosexuality is present in other animals throughout "nature". Actually cannibalism is a common ecological interaction in the animal kingdom and has been recorded for more than 1500 species. So its perfectly normal and common in nature.

canabalism, incest, ect. being characterized as "normal" and "common" depends on yur definition of normal and common. Throughout human societies, the "norms" and "commons" change from culture to culture, time from time. (im going to edit my previous post, but for now)-in most societies if not all, canabalism/incest is not the normal means of attaining food and sex.Its usually a last resort, mental issue, or some ritual (for incest- means of keeping wealth, keeping other stuff in the family, lack of mates, ninjutsu, ect.)

I honestly cant imagine a society where hunting and eating your fellow man is a norm and a main way of attaining meat. Societies wouldn't function very long.Murder would cease to exists.Same with incests, when other mates r attainable, most simply wouldnt settle with a sibling they have lived with their entire life. I think the examples of incest and canabalism in human societies r an exception to the rule, not the rule its self.Outside of rituals, survival, and self interest, this shit just isnt done under any "normal/common" circumstances. peace over war

Ever notice, how when you have a group of several people, stranded out in the middle of nowhere, and their food runs of, that they usually resort to cannibalism, it happens more often then you think, and what that shows, is that cannibalism is part of human nature, it's part of the instinct to survive.

Survival Cannibalism

Anthropologists divide anthropophagy into two broad categories, based on its context. One is learned cannibalism, also called customary anthropophagy. The other broad classification, survival cannibalism, is perhaps the most disturbing. Survival cannibalism isn't learned, it appears to be innate(part of human nature). It's also the one most easily forgiven in the minds of Westerners. And it's happened more commonly than civilized society would feel comfortable admitting.

The Donner Party is one striking example. In 1846, a group of Westward expansionists set out for California from the Iowa territory. A group of 89 settlers broke off from the original party, taking a shortcut through the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Stranded in the mountains by a harsh winter and faced with starvation, the group splintered again. As the weather grew worse, the original and expedition sections of the Donner Party depleted their food, their animals and eventually turned to cannibalism to survive.

Forty years later, four men on a yacht named the Mignonette sailing from England to Australia were stranded in a lifeboat after the yacht sank in the Atlantic. They remained adrift for more than two months and exhausted the meat of a sea turtle they'd captured. One of the men -- a sailor named Richard Parker -- drank seawater out of desperate thirst. As his health declined, his shipmates opted to kill and eat him rather than wait for the young man to die naturally. In an excruciating twist of irony, a sailor named Richard Parker was eaten by his fellow castaways after they'd eaten a tortoise in a 1838 Edgar Allen Poe short story, "The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym" [source: The New York Times].

In 1972, a group of 16 people, including members of a Uruguayan rugby team, faced a similar situation when a plane crash stranded them in the Andes Mountains in Chile. During their 70 days in the mountains, the surviving members of the team ate the flesh of others who died in the plane crash [source: Simpson].

Survival cannibalism has happened enough that by the 19th century, it was an unspoken fact of life in the event of a shipwreck. This, the custom of the sea, included general guidelines. Drawing lots (straws) was the traditional method of deciding who would be killed and eaten and who would carry out the killing. Usually, the person with the shortest straw died and the person with the next shortest straw was the killer [source: Salon].

Survival cannibalism is a last resort. In the case of one group adrift in a lifeboat, 116 days passed without food before the party turned to eating human flesh. In most cases, anything even remotely resembling food was first eaten. Dogs, candles, leather, shoes and blankets are all consumed first before cannibalism becomes the only recourse for survival.

Under these terrible circumstances, cannibalism seems like a logical step. It appears in Looney Tunes cartoons when characters find themselves in some other life-threatening situation. Suddenly, Bugs Bunny or Elmer Fudd notices a companion looks an awful lot like a nice, perfectly cooked porterhouse steak. As terrible as the thought is, it just makes sense. But Western society's willingness to forgive its members' consumption of human flesh in the direst of circumstances is in stark contrast to how the West views learned cannibalism.

So as that says, resorting to cannibalism to survive is hardwired into everyone's head, yours, mine, everyone. It's instinct. So remember that if you ever get stranded somewhere with a bunch of people, your next meal, could very well be sitting next to you. Although it appears to be a last resort thing. But it could very well save your life one day.

As an Anthropology major myself, I've been exposed to alot of weird theories and studies about the innate human nature.Yet most of those concepts make sense. And this concept of "Survival Cannibalism" is no exception.

Most people who don't study science or Anthropology are so simple minded when it comes to nature. I even heard a few ignorant people claiming that cannibalism, "isn't natural" yet are complete oblivious to the blatant evidence of cannibalism in nature. The same with concepts like "homosexuality" or "Incest"

Of course one must always be aware of the adage that says "Just because something is naturallu inherent doesn't mean that is can be justified."

It's interesting that nature can be so unusual at times, huh?

Well it does make logical sense, correct, humans being social animals, are usually gathered together, and since humans are carnivores, and again are usually gathered in groups, it makes perfect sense, that if the normal food supply runs out, you can consume your fellow humans, as they too as made of meat. So it makes logical sense that cannibalism would be a survival instinct. I mean a starving wolf would attack a fellow wolf given the right conditions. If you have to you have to right ? As for incest, i fail to see the problem with incest, and homosexuality is present in other animals throughout "nature". Actually cannibalism is a common ecological interaction in the animal kingdom and has been recorded for more than 1500 species. So its perfectly normal and common in nature.

canabalism, incest, ect. being characterized as "normal" and "common" depends on yur definition of normal and common. Throughout human societies, the "norms" and "commons" change from culture to culture, time from time. (im going to edit my previous post, but for now)-in most societies if not all, canabalism/incest is not the normal means of attaining food and sex.Its usually a last resort, mental issue, or some ritual (for incest- means of keeping wealth, keeping other stuff in the family, lack of mates, ninjutsu, ect.)

I honestly cant imagine a society where hunting and eating your fellow man is a norm and a main way of attaining meat. Societies wouldn't function very long.Murder would cease to exists.Same with incests, when other mates r attainable, most simply wouldnt settle with a sibling they have lived with their entire life. I think the examples of incest and canabalism in human societies r an exception to the rule, not the rule its self.Outside of rituals, survival, and self interest, this shit just isnt done under any "normal/common" circumstances. peace over war

It's also rather interesting to study real cannibalism among animals. As we can see, although cannibalism is more commonly seen among the insect, arachnid, and the reptilian species. The act of cannibalizing among mammals and primates were done solely in order to secure resources.

canabalism, incest, ect. being characterized as "normal" and "common" depends on yur definition of normal and common. Throughout human societies, the "norms" and "commons" change from culture to culture, time from time. (im going to edit my previous post, but for now)-in most societies if not all, canabalism/incest is not the normal means of attaining food and sex.Its usually a last resort, mental issue, or some ritual (for incest- means of keeping wealth, keeping other stuff in the family, lack of mates, ninjutsu, ect.)

I honestly cant imagine a society where hunting and eating your fellow man is a norm and a main way of attaining meat. Societies wouldn't function very long.Murder would cease to exists.Same with incests, when other mates r attainable, most simply wouldnt settle with a sibling they have lived with their entire life. I think the examples of incest and canabalism in human societies r an exception to the rule, not the rule its self.Outside of rituals, survival, and self interest, this shit just isnt done under any "normal/common" circumstances. peace over war

Cannibalism :

Its still practiced in some cultures, amazon tribes for instance. Its just a survival method, nothing wrong with doing what you have to to survive, somethings wrong if you do it for fun or simply for the hell of it, sure , but for survival, its justified. When it comes to core survival, there are no rules, anything goes. And its all justified.

Incest :

Incest is incest, if you want to have a relationship with your sister or cousin, go for it, if you love her / him and want a family but don't want a genetically mutant baby, adopt a kid, problem solved. Its no big deal, besides, if you trace human history back far enough, 2 + million years, were all related by blood, we all came from the same ancestors(this also hold true if you believe in adam + eve, we are all decendants of them right). So if you want to get technical, its incest no matter who you are with, as we are all related, and if you continue to trace it back, you'll find your related to your neighbors dog or cat, or the bacterial in yours or anyone else's mouth. We all came from the same first protocell after all, but that's another topic, but my point is, even if you have sex with a dog or horse or a stranger, its still incest if you trace it back far enough. So leave it be, if we want to have relations with our known family, so what, let them. Who cares, not going to cause you or me any physical and / or mental ailments now is it ? I'm not going to get aids because my cousin decided to sleep with my other cousin. So why bother caring ?